NeoConCabal is right that there's no historical memory. When I travel outside the bubble that is the United States on this issue, people ask me why Americans know almost nothing of the history that explains Palestinian anger and throws Israel's brutality into relief.

Glenn, thanks for this poignant article. It is sad that an individual with as much intellectual/cognitive power as Friedman chooses to channel that ability into lower expression rather than speaking as deeply and eloquently as he is able towards human understanding and growth. There can be no question that pain is pain, and though many peoples on this planet are suffering today, we have a predominantly young population for which these events may become the driving motivators of their lives. To think that the events will not result in future suffering is but the realm of fools. Violence and hatred only begets its continued existence. As a Jew myself, shame on anyone who defends the indiscriminate slaughter of other human beings. Hold your peace, live and be compassion as much as possible, and you shall know the truth of life. Live in anger, jealousy, envy, and hatred and you only perpetuate the baseness of human experience, the endless conflicts that are very much the fabric of our existence. This pattern can change, though it takes each person's intention and courage, action to do so. Thanks for your courage to share these ideas and counterpoint.

War sometimes IS the answer.

Oh, really? There seem to be more that enough that seem to think that "was IS the answer". Period. Including King George "Rutherford B. Hayes" the Second. And how's that worked out?

Cheers,

Show us evidence that we have taken the above position---not negative evidence of a position not taken. -- Baldie McEagle

Here's a good one from Glenn where he takes a definition of terrrorism and twists it to include everyone, but especially Israel.

Other than the fact that Friedman is advocating these actions for an actual state rather than a "subnational group," can anyone identify any differences between (a) what Friedman approvingly claims was done to the Lebanese and what he advocates be done to Palestinians and (b) what the State Department formally defines as "terrorism"?

Add to that, rather than self-defense, israel is committing war crimes,

But while the efficacy of The Friedman Strategy is unclear, the fact that it is a perfect distillation of a "war crime" and "terrorism" is not unclear at all.

And there is the case that Israel is morally wrong, and the Palestinians are victims of some heinous action. Im sure that I'm not going to find a quote along the lines that you and Glenn think Hamas should go kill Jews, rather you've defined the reason why it should happen. Victimhood and blamelessness in attacking Israeli civilians.

NeoConCabal is right that there's no historical memory.

I don't believe NCC suggested this. Rather, as I read it, s/he implied wholesale ignorance on the part of the commenters here regarding, broadly, middle eastern history.

In any event, there's been no response so I've put away my pencil and notepad and will now return to study any history that my scrawny self can comfortably shoulder. Right now, I'm at "Four score and seven years ago" and I'm already wheezing.

Is it just me, or do other folks find Greenwald's relentlessly one-sided characterization of the Middle East conflict extremely tiresome? If one takes a step back and thinks of all the pieces this twisted individual has written about the situation there, each and every one has been critical of Israel, arguably the only reasonably sane player in a very bad neighborhood.

It's truly remarkable that the sympathy Greenwald invariably mobilizes around "Palestinian victims" never seems to get extended to the many Israeli(and other worldwide)victims of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

Or the 400,000 or so murdered in the Sudan. Or the innumerable other civilian victims of wars everywhere.

this guy badly needs help for some very deep pathologic anti-Semitism--it's as simple as that.

I was going to ignore you previous complaint as whiny but this actually made me laugh out loud....

I just finished up a course in Public International Law, and I remember the professor saying that the right to acquire territory by conquering it no longer exists. So I would also like to see a link.

Look, if you want to score legal points, a war is not the place to do it. But oddly you complain when I point out no consideration from you for the Israeli POV. That tells me what I need to know about your POV.

Somebody had written that the Gaza operation did not deserve the attention and criticism, by comparison to the Sri Lanka battle against the Tamil Tigers. The argument is facetious, but just for the record:

Number killed in Gaza in 20 days: 1000
Number killed in Sri Lanka in 1 year: 10,000 (8,000 + 2,000)
Extrapolation of Gaza to 1 year for rate: 18,000 per year
Five year total for Gaza at that rate: 90,000 per 5 years
Total for Sri Lanka war: Less than 80,000 in 25 years
Five year extrapolation for Sri Lanka War: 16,000 per 5 years
Percent of population of Gaza per 5 years: 16.7%
Percent of population for Sri Lanka for 25 years: .3%
Percent of population for Cambodia for 5 years (Pol Pot): 20%
Percent of population for Congo for 5 years: 4%
Percent of population for Darfur for 5 years: 7%

Granted there is no intent to continue the Gaza crisis for 5 years. The intent was only to show the relative rate, in comparison to some well known conflicts people would rather discuss. It probably is not a good idea to try this kind of deflection until the rate of killing goes down.

AVI SHLAIM:

on rockets:

Now, let me give you some figures, which I think are the most crucial figures in understanding this conflict. Before the ceasefire came into effect in July of 2008, the monthly number of rockets fired—Kassam rockets, homemade Kassam rockets, fired from the Gaza Strip on Israeli settlements and towns in southern Israel was 179. In the first four months of the ceasefire, the number dropped dramatically to three rockets a month, almost zero. I would like to repeat these figures for the benefit of your listeners. Pre-ceasefire, 179 rockets were fired on Israel; post-ceasefire, three rockets a month. This is point number one, and it’s crucial.

And my figures are beyond dispute, because they come from the website of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. But after initiating this war, this particular table, neat table, which showed the success of the ceasefire, was withdrawn and replaced with another table of statistics, which is much more obscure and confusing. Israel—the Foreign Ministry withdrew these figures, because it didn’t suit the new story.

on breaking the cease fire:

The new story said that Hamas broke the ceasefire. This is a lie. Hamas observed the ceasefire as best as it could and enforced it very effectively. The ceasefire was a stunning success for the first four months. It was broken not by Hamas, but by the IDF. It was broken by the IDF on the 4th of November, when it launched a raid into Gaza and killed six Hamas men.

ever since Hamas captured power in Gaza in the summer of 2007, Israel had imposed a blockade of the Strip. Israel stopped food, fuel and medical supplies from reaching the Gaza Strip. One of the terms of the ceasefire was that Israel would lift the blockade of Gaza, yet Israel failed to lift the blockade, and that is one issue that is also overlooked or ignored by official Israeli spokesmen. So Israel was doubly guilty of sabotaging the ceasefire, A, by launching a military attack, and B, by maintaining its very cruel siege of the people of Gaza.

on the Oslo Accord:

And Israel helped Hamas inadvertently in another way, because Fatah signed the Oslo Accord with Israel in 1993. It expected the Oslo Accord to lead to a two-state solution. And yet, Israel, after the election of Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, reneged on the Israeli side of the deal. So, the Oslo Accord, the Oslo peace process wasn’t doomed to failure from the start. It failed because Israel, under the leadership of the Likud, reneged on its side of the deal.

One question I have for Israeli apologists: recognizing the likelihood you won't believe the above because it doesn't fit your preconception, would you change your opinion on the Israeli offensive if you were convinced the above were true?